Cost-effectiveness of two psychological treatments for the reduction of alcohol consumption

Abstract Background Up to 7% of the Swedish population meets criteria for harmful use or alcohol dependency but only 10-20% seek treatment. One of the most recommended psychological treatments for controlled drinking is Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET). Behavioural Self-Control Training (BSCT) is another treatment that is unique in that it is based on the psychology of learning and specifically focused on skills training. To our knowledge, no previous studies exist that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BSCT for alcohol use disorders (AUD). The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of BSCT compared to MET for patients with AUD aiming for controlled drinking over the longer-term from a societal perspective. Methods We modelled a cohort of patients with AUD who aim for controlled drinking, over a 10 year time horizon, and estimated the expected costs and outcomes of BSCT and MET. The model reflects the epidemiological transitions between drinking states, which reflect different levels of daily alcohol intake. Each drinking state is connected to temporary or long-term complications attributable to alcohol consumption, different costs and utilities. The data was sourced from a randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of MET vs BSCT. Risks for complications and associated costs, utilities and mortality were sourced from the literature. Results Compared to MET, BSCT resulted in less total QALYs gained (4,7 vs 6,6 QALYs per patient). MET remains a cost effective treatment compared to BSCT [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) = SEK 8497,79 per gained QALY] and a No Intervention scenario BSCT [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) = SEK 16321,07 per gained QALY] at a threshold of 500.000 SEK per QALY. Conclusions This study suggests that MET should remain the recommended treatment for AUD patients with a goal of controlled drinking in favor of BSCT. Key messages • Motivational Enhancement Therapy should remain the recommended treatment for AUD patients with controlled drinking as their goal. • A future study comparing Motivational Enhancemente Therapy to Behaivoral Self Control Training as recommended treatment in patients wanting to achieve abstinenece is suggested.


Background:
Up to 7% of the Swedish population meets criteria for harmful use or alcohol dependency but only 10-20% seek treatment. One of the most recommended psychological treatments for controlled drinking is Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET). Behavioural Self-Control Training (BSCT) is another treatment that is unique in that it is based on the psychology of learning and specifically focused on skills training. To our knowledge, no previous studies exist that evaluated the costeffectiveness of BSCT for alcohol use disorders (AUD). The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of BSCT compared to MET for patients with AUD aiming for controlled drinking over the longer-term from a societal perspective.

Methods:
We modelled a cohort of patients with AUD who aim for controlled drinking, over a 10 year time horizon, and estimated the expected costs and outcomes of BSCT and MET. The model reflects the epidemiological transitions between drinking states, which reflect different levels of daily alcohol intake. Each drinking state is connected to temporary or long-term complications attributable to alcohol consumption, different costs and utilities. The data was sourced from a randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of MET vs BSCT. Risks for complications and associated costs, utilities and mortality were sourced from the literature.

Conclusions:
This study suggests that MET should remain the recommended treatment for AUD patients with a goal of controlled drinking in favor of BSCT.

Key messages:
Motivational Enhancement Therapy should remain the recommended treatment for AUD patients with controlled drinking as their goal. A future study comparing Motivational Enhancemente Therapy to Behaivoral Self Control Training as recommended treatment in patients wanting to achieve abstinenece is suggested.

Background:
Personalised medicine (PM) has the potential to transform health systems and make them more sustainable, by making the population healthier and allocating resources efficiently. European Union and China have become world leaders in the field of PM, increasing collaborations worldwide. In this context, the EU Commission in 2020 launched the IC2PerMed (Integrating China in the International Consortium for Personalised Medicine) project to provide key solutions to enable the convergence of European and Chinese stakeholders toward a common approach in PM.

Methods:
From a mapping exercise of policies and programs in PM in EU and China, we identified 20 priority items for shaping sustainable healthcare. Such items were submitted to several Chinese and European experts in PM involved in a 3-round Delphi survey. Experts were asked to review the items' content and rate their validity and relevance on a 5-point Likert scale. Priorities reaching a Content Validity Index of more than 79% were included, between 70 and 79% were revised, and less than 70% were excluded.

Results:
Of 20 priorities submitted, 9 reached consensus. The priorities hinge on the resources allocation, defining in advance priority investment, and identifying new payment models for public reimbursement, health technology impact, and assessment importance, while integrating end-user perceptions into the whole innovation process. In addition, the pivotal role of multidisciplinary and cross-sectorial collaborations emerged. Ethical, legal, and social implications and the related costs should be always considered in policymaking, evaluation, and management of technological innovation.

Conclusions:
Integrating resources and setting a clear agenda for the implementation of PM would lead to a faster and more efficient translation into clinical practice. Developing policies valuing all the stakeholders' contributions would implement PM adoption.

Key messages:
Healthcare systems sustainability is a priority and PM could make the population healthier and help allocate resources more efficiently, hence reducing the overall costs of healthcare.
iii174 European Journal of Public Health, Volume 32 Supplement 3, 2022